Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Ron
I think this posting on movement points to the central difference between how you approach Aikido and that of others (me included). There are some who can move on you and you will not be able to affect that movement, stop or handle their attack other than be at the effect of it. They are so stable in their movement, within themselves, that you can't sense the intent of their movement before it is visible as movement or deal with it.

Invalidated very simply - attacker is standing motionless, but his position is preventing me from reaching a desired goal. For example, assisting a friend who is being assaulted by the attacker's compatriot.

Also it assumes that anything moving is, but it's very nature, unstable. That is not, as Gary pointed out, always the case.

This is the kind of thing that I heard a lot of when I first started Aikido - seems to make sense, but upon examination you find that there are just too many situations where it just doesn't hold up.

There are some who can move on you and you will not be able to affect that movement, stop or handle their attack other than be at the effect of it. They are so stable in their movement, within themselves, that you can't sense the intent of their movement before it is visible as movement or deal with it.
Gary

yup. that old phrase "motion in stillness and stillness in motion" has a whole new meaning with those folks.

I did - in that he implies that the attacker being in motion is a requirement for doing something.

Quote:

Graham Christian wrote:

2) I don't think he implies uke being motionless in front of you is a barrier or is preventing you from doing anything. No different to a lamp post really.

A lamp post can block you from going somewhere if it's in the right position. That was my point - this theory is invalidated that by the fact that there are many times when you will have to deal with someone who is not moving.

Invalidated very simply - attacker is standing motionless, but his position is preventing me from reaching a desired goal. For example, assisting a friend who is being assaulted by the attacker's compatriot.

Also it assumes that anything moving is, but it's very nature, unstable. That is not, as Gary pointed out, always the case.

This is the kind of thing that I heard a lot of when I first started Aikido - seems to make sense, but upon examination you find that there are just too many situations where it just doesn't hold up.

Best,

Chris

Good points. It is why I prefer OODA as a model for a dealing with a threat as it does not necessarily require physical movement or contact. To be successful in winning under the theory of OODA you simple need to take whatever action is necessary to disrupt the decision cycle of your opponent. Thinking in terms of Musahsi it can be as simple as meeting your opponent on the beach with the sun behind your back.

If we deal with things purely in terms of the immediate and physical, we lose sight of a great deal of what is really important which is the strategic. IMO, this is what we are striving to reach in our studies, an keen understanding of cause and effect and being able to affect things long before the physical.

I did - in that he implies that the attacker being in motion is a requirement for doing something.

A lamp post can block you from going somewhere if it's in the right position. That was my point - this theory is invalidated that by the fact that there are many times when you will have to deal with someone who is not moving.

Best,

Chris

O.K. Chris so we disagree on the first point as to what he implied.

On the second I think I know where he is coming from so I don't think your point invalidates it at all. More that you misunderstand it.

There are not many times when you have to deal with someone who is not moving, especially in Aikido and especially when the scenario is not one of already being held.

A lamp post does not have to be moved even if it's threatening to fall on you.

In blending style Aikido there is no doing to, it's not necessary. That's where I believe he is coming from. We shall see.

First, if someone chooses to use their attack to remain motionless, that is a poor attack, but they wish to affect me. Likewise, our modern ukewaza, which centers around the free-giving of her balance, is an attack; a poor one, but an attack. In any other martial art if uke were to attack as we do, you would practically hear nage squeal with joy. Second, theoretically we are practicing aikido as either uke or nage, Aikido happens on both sides, so we necessarily need to align our principles as they may be applied as both uke and nage.

For me, theses two points create some issues with Ron's statements. Not that his statements are wrong, but that they assume 1. uke is either in motion or not. 2. Nage is doing something different than uke. 3. nage can do something to uke.

The whole concept of hanmi is to present a stable structure that offers no suki. There are plenty of people with whom I train who may stand in hanmi and simply dominate the space between us. While not attacking, they offer no suki and present a real threat of retaliation if I invade the space they dominate. Sundadomari sensei is one of the best aikido people who simply own the space around them. If you have not seen Kenji Ushiro sensei back someone off a mat, he also owns his space.

Now that I am looking for it, I see a lot of parity in the relationship between uke and nage, often even their stances and body movements are in parallel, excepting the grafting of uke's center onto nage's. Ron's rhetoric is more dependent on "doing" something to uke and uke acting in a fashion to allow nage to "do" something to her. I try to look for answers that involve uke and nage both practicing aikido, not uke being the "bad guy" and nage being the "aikido guy".

For me, I think rather than saying, "If uke is in motion there's no need for me to move him. If uke is stationary, again, there's no need for me to move him." I would say, "My movement is my own and not subject to affect by another."

In blending style Aikido there is no doing to, it's not necessary. That's where I believe he is coming from. We shall see.

Peace.G.

For all else that has been said....my initial response was to the idea that a blending style of Aikido handles all..... I know people who you can not feel move, you can not feel their intention to move...you can not sense it and once moving you can not blend with it.....you are just at the effect of it.

That is not to say you can not reach a level where you are the one that moves without others awareness.....maybe with the ability to "blend" early enough so the attack doesn't happen... just hard to reach at half that level....and there doesn't seem to be much interest in doing even that .....so.....

you know that there are uke who can attack without moving, at all; yet can force you to move at high speed. these ukes employed ancient secret and deadly ki techniques which involved kimchee, eggs, re-fried bean, cheese, onion and sour cream. now if such uke employs such technique in enclosed space, say an elevator, there can no defense.

Not applicable to our dojo as we request that everyone check their guns at the door.

Pardon my misunderstanding, I thought that those statements were meant to be applicable beyond a room in Great Barrington, MA, in a context of a general confrontational situation.
The OP plays on the vague meaning/implications of the verb "motion" and the way it relates to "attack". I used different verbs with same syntactic structure to explore the meaning.